Glock to Army on SIG MHS Contract: Not So Fast

Glock would like to have a word with the Army over their recent pistol trial results. (Photo: TFB/P&S)

Glock is protesting the military’s decision to replace its current sidearm with the relatively new SIG P320-based XM17. The military selected the SIG design to replace the aging Beretta M9 series pistols in service late last year.

Until the Army responds to the protest the switch from Beretta pistols to SIG pistols will not move forward. Time will tell if this is a business formality or if it will alter the course of the Army’s hunt for their next sidearm.

The search for a new military sidearm began in 2015 with the Modular Handgun System competition, or MHS (It was originally announced in 2011, but after multiple delays, the official “Request for Proposals” didn’t happen until Sept. 2015). The MHS sought out a replacement for the M9 family of handguns in service throughout the military with a more modern design.

While the M9 design has its fans and critics, there’s no denying that the actual pistols in service are reaching their end-of-life. Facing replacement, the military decided to use this as an opportunity to seek out a fresh design.

And 2015 was a great time for the MHS. In recent years many prominent firearm manufacturers have released solid next-generation service pistols with advanced features and improved controls.

The Army’s requirements for a replacement polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol included a closed-slide design with frame-mounted controls, a modular grip system, and ambidextrous features. Combined with a prohibition against finger grooves on the pistol grip, these requirements neatly framed the P320 from the beginning.

Still, there are good reasons for the Army to consider Glock for the role. For one, Glock already supplies pistols to select units in service with the U.S. military. This means that parts and training are already in place. And there’s no denying that Glock pistols have a longer track record than SIG and their P320, and have a much larger aftermarket.

There’s also no doubting that current Glock models didn’t meet the exacting requirements of the MHS program. Glock addressed this with their updated and largely unreleased fifth-generation M-series, and that could be the grounds for the company’s protest.

Leaked photos of the Glock 17M and 19M indicate that the new series sports an ambidextrous slide stop, reversible magazine release and critically, no finger grooves. Like the Gen 4 series, the M-series uses interchangeable backstraps to suit different hand sizes.

About the author:Max Slowik is a writer with over a dozen years of experience and is a lifelong shooter. He has unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the human right to self-defense. His ambition is to follow Thomas Paine, as a journalist by profession and a propagandist by inclination.

So first off the error in the story is that Glock has been around longer. Sig has been making firearms for over a hundred years. The modular design allows the Army greater adaptability with less cost. The Glock is over rated by it’s fans.

I had a Glock 357. Had two mags loaded for a couple months. Went to the range and was very surprised, neither mag would allow a round to chamber. I smacked hard on the back of the slide to no avail. I release each mag and unloaded. I re loaded and they both worked. Like most pistols, they all can fail. I sold the Glock which i still feel is a good gun but i have two small Sigs, 380 and 9 to carry and neither has ever failed. So far.

The Army did an evaluation of the Glock back in 2008 which was 500 pages long. I got my copy from an Army LTC and we used it to support an evaluation by Air Force Special Operations considering the G19 (which they selected). In all the entire report I could find no compelling reason the Army didn’t choose that weapon back then. It is quite comment for other offers to protest. To make statements about whiny babies is a reflection of the fact you know nothing about current military procurement.
I don’t care what weapon the Army chooses but you can count on a protest for every significant item the military buys in the future.
The Army has a habit of not picking the best weapon (ie. M-16) purchased by the Air Force Security Forces then the Army decided they wanted them. The Army is never wrong just that they aren’t right at times either….

“We can agree the M9 has reached its service life” Really? By what standard? In the corps, being a tanker, that was my sidearm and we were lucky to get to the range once a year and allotted 50 rounds to practice and qualify! I can bet the rifling is cherry as the day it was made, due to so little use in the vast majority of these. And regardless of which pistol you prefer, no armorer is going to handout back straps so the troops can “customize” their pistols. Ha what laugh! We should all be outraged at this government waste! And please you dinosaurs, stfu about the 1911 already!

THINK ON THESE THINGS:
1. This $380 million DoD award announcement was made 19 January – a decision made by the Obama gang, just one day before Trump’s inauguration.
2. The Glock plant is in Georgia – a Red State.
3. The Sig plant is in NH – a Blue State.
4. Glock was winning the shoot-out, durability, and ease of maintenance tests and met every RFP speck.

I am so sick to death of these winny ass cry babies being allowed to stop American progress!! My thoughts are; proceed with the Army’s plans, dismiss Glocks protest, and refer Glock to Amrican buisness practices. It is painfully obvious that Glock is trying every dirty trick in the book (and geting away with it, even though they refusedd to meet RFP Spec’s. I don’t know what world the jerks at Glock live in, butt in my world… If you do not meet the RFP spec’s I throw your trash in the circcular file! Just as, every single client basedd RFP I’ve ever responded to is met with the same fate. The fact that this is happening, is further proof that the far left loony-toon, left-wing-nuts of past administrations are still destroying American interest today.

Have you ever had a day where your your boss with less hands on experience than you was just WRONG?
Well i am not a glock fan by any means they definitely picked the shittyest gun in the pile, while nothing there would even come close to the accuracy and dependability of the M9 i have shot the sig 320 and i think it is by far the biggest letdown from the sig people ever. There is nothing that will ever top the 226 but that 320 is a crappy m&p with the sig logo on it. So my point is anyone with thousands of rounds down range like myself could only summize that there was a big enney meeney minney moe that day and hence the 320 won. There is reason to bitch sir.

Glock is being a cry-baby now. BUILD TO SPEC! What is so hard to understand here?! I own Glocks, Smith M&P’s, and Rugers and all have their plus/minus. Smith lost but I did not hear nearly the squawk from them.

But….rule #1 is BUILD TO THE CUSTOMER’S SPEC! You can ALWAYS offer an alternative and its merits but you NEVER jam a customer and say “take it or leave it”.

Glocks are reliable and all that. I just think they are ugly. Not a big deal in a combat zone. I’ve only fired a SIG once and it was really a thing of beauty. It’s beauty was reflected in its cost. I have however, owned and operated the Beretta. It’s only my opinion but the Beretta is a work of art too. It just looks and feels like it belongs in your hand. Just my opinion.

The Sig has the true modular grip, barrel and Firing Control Unit (FCU). Does Glock produce a model incorporating a modular trigger system. Interchangeable backstraps does not make a pistol modular. Modular was one of the primary REQUIREMENTS.

I will take the Sig anytime. No; A safety is not really required on a double action pistol. It would be the same as putting a safety on a revolver. The Sig is going to be manufactured in the USA (New Hampshire)
The CZ 75 would have been a good choice too.
Don’t over think it. The SIG is going to be great.

On Thurs Jan 19th – just one day before Trump’s inauguration, the Obama-controlled DoD awarded the pistol contract to SIG. Why? The SIG P320 was the right DNC political choice because:
1. It would be built in a blue state (NH) that voted for Hillary ($380 million contracts are not to be handed out to plants in red states).
2. NH is a pro-DNC union state and the SIG plant is union-controlled -vs- that Glocks would be built at the current Glock plant in Georgia – a solid red state, and Right-to-Work state (the DNC hates Right-to-Work laws).
3. The P320 is aptly named – in that it has about 320 moving parts -vs- only 34 parts in a Glock 19….so the SIG ensures more things to break, more mods, more parts, more replacements required over the life of the contract….therefore more $$ flowing into the Democratic state (NH).
SUMMARY: Glocks are the most reliable and solidly built auto pistols on earth. Not a good concept when you want continuous repairs and continuous modifications to a DoD contract over many decades which brings in loads more $$$ to your state….and especially if that state is a DNC satellite. Therefore the Obama DoD clowns wanted to get this award out before the new Republican administration came in.

Dude!! what a lame and politically motivated analysis about Glock vs Sig i have ever read recently… seriously!!. If you can’t do a technical comparison and prove your point then STFU. Read and learn from professionals. Glock and Sig are both battel proven firearms. They are used in numerous departments across the globe.

Every professional that I know (law enforcement officers), uses a Glock. Not a single one of them use a Sig. Your point has been rendered useless. Now you STFU and go back to your room, let the adults talk.

Ralph…I am one of those “professionals” that you speak of. I will tell you this: The Sig 320, while it is a worthy pistol, came literally out of NOWHERE to be awarded this contract. Yes, you can “switch” frames on a 320. However–and this is a BIG however–you need specialized training to work on that inner module on a Sig pistol. You will also need specialized tools.

The Glock handgun can be COMPLETELY serviced in an arms room. ALL parts of the handgun can be replaced by a Unit Armorer. Plus, there were a lot of Glock parts already in the supply system. The procurement of the Sig pistol is going to mean training (money) spare parts for BII and AAL (more money) different holsters (even more money). And, while the Sig is a durable design, I have yet to see a Sig pistol fire over 500,000 rounds WITHOUT MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PART. There are a few well documented Glocks that have gone that route.

I like Glocks. I have been a Glock armorer for decades and have built several and enjoy them. GLOCK isn’t a truly modular pistol. You can certainly take the trigger assembly out intact and then the fire control unit is workable. But you have to have tools, even if they are only a couple of punches and a flat tipped screwdriver.
My 320, which I have had for over a year and a half is modular. I can tune a Glock trigger in ten. fifteen minutes of taking it apart, adjusting tolerances and putting it back together and repeat….. I can change a 320 trigger in three minutes, I have large, medium and small Compact grip modules and can exchange the grip size of my 320 in a few minutes.
The 320 began life as the P250. Mine is a first gen 320 and there are several newer iterations available. Not cosmetically/superficially altered like the gen 1-2-3-4 Glocks. I like Glocks. Always will. But they aren’t Sigs.
I’ll always have Glocks.
I’ll never be without a Sig P320.

Glock’s are fine weapons. Accurate and absolute reliability. But it is not a Sig. A Sig just feels better in your hand ( my opinion ) and points instinctively. The Sig is also extremely accurate and completely reliable. Somebody wins, somebody has to lose. Nobody is saying a Glock is bad, Sig is just better. Glock needs to accept this and look to the future and the next competition, just like the Libtards need to accept that Trump won. ( Thank God! )

Sigs are more accurate and last longer out of the box then glock the entire gun world knows this. I own a sig 229 in a double action a glock 17 and a S&W M&P both strike fire. The sig does not fit my hands to good. The glock is to dangerous with no safety or any way of decocking, looks like an old Ford F series. The M&P looks good feels good fits good but accuracy lags behind the other two so much so I won’t purchase another. The military needs these weapons for some serious close combat. Not if and when a threat may arise but they will actually be used to shoot someone shooting back. The sig is the best tool for that purpose there is know apprehension about the a mass produced Sigs accuracy or reliability. It just a better long term functioning platform out of the crate. Glocks fit the hand better then Sigs and are more accurate then an M&P ,
Its not right of glock to use premium ingredients to win a competition when they serve the regular ingredients to the masses. Its the military’s job to see through the perceived notions of all the manufacturers and go with what fits there needs best!

If you think the Glock has no safety, you are sadly misinformed! I own Glocks & Sigs as well as other brands. Much of your commentary is neither factual or close to accurate! Don’t know where you got the idea that Glock submitted test weapons that were “premium ingredients”!

You need to get your FACTS straight before posting something that is completely based only on your opinions!

Glock does one thing very well….it works, it’s arguably the most reliable handgun ever made. I was a firearms instructor for the Treasury Department and later for the Department of Homeland Security for a total of over 20 years. I carried my my Glock 17 for 7 years and fired it daily at the range. This gun had thousands of rounds thru it with no issues and that’s all I need to know about a battle weapon. These gen 3 guns were all the same, no back changing, no changing the slide release, no changing the mag release. This is good especially in training new Officers because the new Officers did not have weapons assigned to them, they took weapons off the rack each range day. This is good also in the field when weapons could get switched. The left handed Officers trained a little different than the right hand Officers by using the trigger finger to dump the slide and unlock the mag, this works great because the trigger finger should be out of the trigger guard anyway when reloading. If an Officer or Soldier needs a customized weapon, maybe they need a desk job. There are a lot of good weapons on the market, some may fit your hand better, some may shoot straighter, some may be safer, but there is no better battle handgun than the Glock 17, at any cost.

They would have saved the taxpayers a butt-load of $$ if they’d just got in their gov issued Escalades, gone down to the local gun shops, and filled the backs with Glock 19s. Any new “soldiers” who had a problem with them could be weeded out in boot camp and sent home.

After President Clinton reduced the forces by 700,000 members the money (540 million ) would be better spent on restoring the troop numbers by plus 700,000 troopers. The Beretta M9 is still the most reliable and is not fussy what brand/type 9mm cartridges it is feed.

Anybody thinks they need to add one damn cent to a stock Glock to use as a defense use/carry weapon, needs to haul their ass out to a GSSF match and watch “stock” class shooters a little while. I’m a 1911 guy cause I like them, and I’m old, but shoot GSSF indoor league with a 21 (.45 acp) cause I like the .45, carry it, and everybody else uses a 9mm, and I’m competitive with them. Anyhow, before you start adding or subtracting stuff on your defensive carry weapon, you may want to do a little research, or take a MAG 20 or 40 course, and hear what courts have said about your version of how you made your weapon “better” than the factory specifications for that weapon. When you start lightning trigger “press” wts., pinning grip safety’s, etc. your leaving you ass hanging out there, practice with what you carry, carry what you practice with, over and over and….. just my two cents, your milage may vary…. Pop

Not unlike the liberal media, Glock haters usually do not have all the facts and many add emotion into their criticism. I believe most of the haters have probably never had more than a brief exposure to the weapon.

While the Glock 17 lacks the refined beauty of a polished and engraved Colt 1911, every out of the box Glock 17 delivers absolute reliability, simple operation and 18 rounds of firepower without a reload.

I was first introduced to the Glock 17 in 1991 at the DEA Academy in Quantico, Virginia. When I arrived I had a similar reaction as most Glock haters, the weapon looked like a box car, it wasn’t shiny, and it was different than the Sig Sauer P-220 I previously carried for duty use. However after one long morning on the range where I fired several hundred rounds; my opinion of the Glock 17 radially changed forever. As a left hand shooter, the first thing I noticed was how easy it was to release the slide with my index finger, unlike the Sig which required me to rotate my index finger nearly 180 degrees backward to reach the release. It was with great relief I no longer had to even think about dropping the hammer before each re-holster. In effect the Glock 17 was similar to a revolver in that when you pulled the trigger it shot; when you stop pulling the trigger it stops making noise. Simple, no hammer drop, no external safety to manipulate, just a smooth 5 pound trigger and flawless operation. I carried the same Gen 1 Glock 17 for over 10 years without a single malfunction. To demonstrate the weapons reliability to others I loaded 18 spent cases into the magazine, inserted same into the weapon, dropped the slide to chamber the first empty case, then manually cycled the slide 18 times as the Glock 17 spit all 18 cases onto the ground. Try that with any other pistol and you would be lucky if any fed properly.

If it was so great why stop carrying it after 10 years; well DEA decided to collect all 9mm from the troops and they issued .40 cal. To this day I carry either a Glock 22 or a Glock 23 everywhere I go.

Lastly one criticism that has some merit; to disassemble the weapon one must pull the trigger; however, even the most inexperienced shooters knows any weapon must be completely unloaded to safely disassemble it.

Any person who fails to unload his/her weapon prior to cleaning or disassembling same, should never possess any weapon. Accidents happen, but the fault ALWAYS lies with operator not the weapon design.

Give Glock another look, keep an open mind and you too may become a Glock believer. Whatever you decide, be safe and speak up in support of the second amendment!

Gimmee a Sig any day over a Glock. The Sig modular gun is awesome. You’d be hard pressed to find a simpler gun to maintain & repair, or reconfigure if need be. The used market is awash with Glocks, because there are more people wanting to get rid of them than there are people wanting to buy them. That’s for good reason. Been there, done that!

All this fuss over a pantywaist pea-shooter, a foreign one at that. The military should re-enlist the venerable Model 1911 .45 acp for the same reasons it still relies on the M2. They are proven war machines that get the job done. And if the Model 1911 is “too heavy” for today’s recruits, perhaps they should stay home eating Hot Pockets while playing their video games. The marines and other special units use the Yankee Fist for good reason, when they pull the trigger the enemy falls down. No double or triple taps required. But apparently the light-in-the-loafer crowd weened on plastic fantastics who volunteer for America’s politically-correct military are eager to acquiesce to the physically-challenged attributes of their fairer-sex counterparts. The very last thing America needs today is an androgynous military reduced in strength and capability to the lowest common denominator. If military personnel are not strong enough to handle a 1911. 45, then perhaps they should find a different line of work. Only real men need apply.

Glocks are Austrian … made in the US.
Sigs are German … made in the US.
Beretta is Italian … made in the US.
Who IS made in the US?
Some newly invented type or clone of an Egyptian pistol?
Smith and Wesson? They lost the contest. (They’re a Glock in Smith’s clothing.)
Colt?
Nope.
Colt has just laid off their entire custom shop and most of the government development staff. Colt will no longer be in operation within the span of this year! They have already borrowed all they can, begged all they can and they are rapidly going belly up.
We have lost the “Made in the USA” battle for handguns.

That really sucks if all of that is true. I hate that Colt is so burdened with govt crap. I always hear “colt never comes out with anything new”…maybe true right now…but I can’t really find anyone who will argue about their reverance or quality. Every Colt product I’ve ever picked up has impressed me.

I don’t believe you saw “to many Glocks fail at the range”. I have 30 years of Law Enforcement range master and armor and SWAT experience to date and have used Glocks the entire time, and never saw one “fail at the range” (or any other time). I have seen a couple that failed to function do to lack of maintenance and as soon a couple of drops of good gun oil were applied the Glocks went right back to working. Not the prettiest gun around, but the most reliable. I personally like the 40 cal better than the 9mm for self defense/duty but that is another topic and is only personal/experience.

Also a retired LE officer who carried a G22 for over 20 years. Never had a malfunction that couldn’t be traced to faulty ammo in over 20,000 rounds! My son’s police academy class used G17’s for firearm training with zero malfunctions. However some in the class used various models of SIGs that were their dept. issue and they experienced numerous malfunctions. SIGs are way too complex and “delicate” for serious military use by your average GI, IMHO.

Glock should bring out a new model called the “Hillary 16″….named after other famous loser / whiners. “When you win say little…when you lose say nothing” Like Hillary, Glock was very shocked that they lost although neither offered what was needed to do the job.

Glock is going DOWN HILL FAST…. Police Departments are leaving them, Left & Right and the Competition is offering more for less with Pistols then Glock can do! I’ve always said Glock’s were overrated & overpriced and now the Market is see it to! It sucks for Glock sure but that’s the FREE MARKET B*TCHES! hahahahaha

The Military made the right choice since they were looking for a low cost plasticky pistol. The Sig has a much safer take down system, a more powerful striker energy (its 90 per cent cocked as opposed to the Glocks 67 per cent) and it has the option of an add on manual safety which is very much needed on a military pistol. True Glock as a much secret factory manual safety but do not expect the military to even be aware of this.

I would have chosen the H&K plasticky pistol as it is hammer fired beating out the ignition energy of the Sig striker fired pistol and the H&K can be had with a manual safety that can be in the on position when the gun is loaded or unloaded and it also has a decocker button as well. A superior pistol to the Sig P330

You still have to pull the trigger to disassemble. . . . A safety hazard that hasn’t been waiting to happen. NDs ALL the time; been there seen that . . . . . Repeatedly. Reliable, but cheap crap. I wouldn’t have a Glock as a gift. Period.

And yet more dependable when gotten dirty and abused! The AK47 of the pistol world.. it’s not a bad gun, some shoot it well, some not, just like all other guns but it IS dependable, and that is what counts.

This whole process reminds me of the last election. Losers carrying like spoiled little snowflakes. Sig won. Stop batching and keep on making your crap guns. Personally I feel the requirements should be that ANY gun for the military should have to be manufactured by an AMERICAN COMPANY. WHERE ARE YOU DONALD? GET INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER.

Looks like Sig may not have to stand down on the contract while the GAO looks at the protest; Glock didn’t file the protest until two days after the deadline. I think that shows a pattern by Glock – they didn’t read the RFP well enough (they missed the part about being modular) and they missed the details about a deadline to protest in the Award.

Totally agree. Late to the competition with a pistol that meets the requirements, now late with a protest. I see a trend here by Glock that is risky for procurement through them. Good pistol or not mismanagement is not what our military needs.

If an individual wants to buy a handgun but the finger grooves of a model don’t fit her hands, she moves on to the next model.
We don’t have that luxury; one grip size must fit all, from the giant to the smallest hands. No grooves makes sense in our system.
Devil’s advocate: explain the M4’s grip then…

I don’t own a Glock , Sig, or Beretta, but what I do know is the FNX models should have won if no politics involved, Ambidextrous, interchangeable backstraps, no finger grooves, decocker, safety, hammer fired, built like a tank, and never ever any FTF, FTE in thousands of rounds using many different ammo types. Built in America, by Americans from an existing military contractor for M-16 and M-249 What a go to war gun should be. Of course just my opinion.

FNX-9, I paid $555 about 5 years ago. Was recommended by the gun store. went home and did some research on the gun and went with it. No regrets, and now they make a compact striker version for CCW. I don’t care for striker fired weapons, but if I was looking for a compact CCW gun, it would be in the running… Hope this helps. Best of luck.

Glock does make a great firearm. BUT…The reason for the Sig is the simple reason of the different size grips. Other designs have different grip sizes, but they involve a “pin” to install the back of the grip. Sig makes small, medium, and large grip sizes. No pin involved…..The pistol can be changed to different calibers while still using the “workings” and the caliber.

That’s great for a personal gun but has nothing to do with a military application. Can you imagine a Soldier transfering from one unit to another or returning from a combat area. They don’t get to take their gun with them, they turn it in. They cannot travel on any kind of civilian transport with their weapon, they turn them in. If they turn in a weapon that has been altered, it must go to an Armorer and you must be an Armorer to work on a military weapon. The idea of the military approving a weapon that can be modified to fit an individual is preposterous.

Recently a German owned company won a US military contract to supply our handgun. It’s a near $600 Million dollar initial contract that will over years grow to 6 Billion dollars. It’s my contention that this contract should have gone to a US company for both economic and strategic reasons. Based on the Mil-Spec and review of the competing weapons, at least one of the US companies had an equal and in my opinion a better submission. I’m aware of the reasons given for the award but I can assure you that they are fabricated. It would be naive to pretend that other influences don’t play a part in an award this large, but as I asserted the economic and strategic impact is destructive to our country. It can be argued that this German company has a US based sister company that employs US citizens, however, the profit goes to Germany and the bulk of the salary pays German residents as well. These figures and the impact to our American company are enough to question the circumstances surrounding this decision, but there is an even more important reason this should have never happened. Small arms are arguably the most important tool in our military, and half of those weapons have now been contracted with a country that we at one time were in war with. Even if an alliance is maintained, the complications of crossing boarders during times of war are not as strategically sound as keeping our equipment here with US owned companies that have the same US based love of their country during times of war. Furthermore, the US prides itself on designing and providing the best for our troops, this purchase gives us the exact same equipment that many other countries have access to. We could have had better.

Later this year is another military contract for service rifles (SURG), eventually constituting the other half of our small arms arsenal. This same German company is competing with other competent US based manufacturers; please do not put all of our eggs in one basket!

Thank you for your time, as someone who wants the best for our country I’m confident that you feel the way I do.

I own an MPX, a 300 BLK sig AR and 3 of their hand guns, I also own 3 Glocks and a few American made weapons, and I am very happy with them and think they all have different advantages and uses. That being said, shame on these political thieves for not awarding this contract to an American company, this kind of corrupt crap is what has eaten away at the very core of this country’s infrastructure and has us depending on the rest of the world for almost everything thing we buy. But our military’s firearms, Hell, is the final nail on the coffin, SHAME ON US. what really hurts is that these companies were even allowed to bid on this contract, this shows you just where our leaders keep their brains, I can tell you one thing, If I were going to war with anyone, I would sure as hell want to keep my supply of firearms ans parts coming in from my back yard, not from any overseas company that could very well be the ones I am going to war with.

First Beretta, Then Sig , now Glock wants the Military as well as the Police market in America.
MEANWHILE: COLT emerges from Chapter 11 barely hanging on………
MESSAGE TO THE DONALD: BUY AMERICAN? MADE IN THE USA BY AMERICAN BUSINESS AND WORKERS……..

Colt did not go into chapter 11 because of Beretta, Sig or Glock or any other European company. Colt went bankrupt because of their own poor business decisions and poor management.

They are barely hanging on for a reason and it’s nobodies fault but Colt. First of all Colt decided they didn’t really need real gun people to run a gun company and that regular business people and bean counters could do a better job. How’d that work out for them?

They believed that they would be able to keep the military contract forever and that they didn’t need regular customers. And while other gun makers were working hard to innovate and improve their products, they thought they could just coast along and just fulfill their government contracts.

Colt on their own lost their way and now they are paying for it and you want to blame others for their poor performance. Colt thought they could just ride on their name and they found out differently. If Samuel Colt ran the company like the people do now, we wouldn’t even know who Colt is. Daniel Defense and Bravo Company and others are run by real Gun people and they are both able to sell all the high end guns they can make.

The reason US manufactured cars didn’t sell well in Japan is that Japan drives on the left. If US manufacturers build what any customer wants the customer will buy it. If they don’t, they won’t. US federal RFPs are very strictly applied. As a citizen believe me you want them to be. None of the firearms presented except the 320 met the RFP. There couldn’t be different winner. This dragged on for many years waiting for these conpanies to put forward a design that met the requirements. They didn’t, so Sig wins by default. Our GIs need new guns now. Not when S&W decides to try to meet specs.

knowing how gov’t procurement operates (and I can imagine how politicized federal purchasing can be) – I’m sure 90% of the decision is/will be based upon “CYA” and pleasing some congressman with connections (like Greg mentioned) – sadly, none of that will benefit the people whose lives will depend on what is chosen…

Shouldn\’t the actual soldiers in the field be making this decision not a bunch of over inflated, lard assed senators who blow wind hard in all directions…? Glock less gunsmithing involved and when it is a 12 year old can do it. My only problem with Glock would be a requirement to beef up their metal rails in the frame where slide rides the frame. Something along the lines of the FNH FNS Frame design would be a better choice. Not sure why FNH FNS pistols were not in the game, suppose it\’s politics again.

Glock still seems to think they are the innovator. Long ago yes they were, now all they do is play catch up if they even bother. Its the attitude they have, that glock is perfection, anything else is junk. The military said, it wanted ambi controls, glock offered…the glock, oh you can switch the mag release. Army said it wanted no finger grooves, glock offered.. finger grooves. And sorry that flimsy snap on piece that falls off the back does not qualify as adjustable grip.

Face it glock fans, how many people go and buy a glock and just shoot it? Of course not, they get a trigger job done, start buying parts they shouldn’t have to. Like get rid of the plastic sights. If a stock glock isnt good enough for the average user, why is it good enough for the military? I bought a FNX not long ago, actually traded a glock for it. The FNX has fully ambi controls, no swapping the mag release, even has the external safety. The FNX has replaceable back straps, something glock should have done lone ago. The FNX came with a solid stainless guide rod, something you have to buy for a glock. The FNX came with metal sights, again something you buy for a glock. The FNX had a really nice trigger, like one you BUY for a glock. Whats the price of an FNX? Same as a stock glock, that you need to spend another $200 in parts for. And heres one for the fan boys, the SIG is made in the US, so is the FNX, vs provided jobs for Austrians.

Glock is just crying the blues, when they should have provided what the friggin military asked for not tell the military what they should buy.

In Law Enforcement you cant have trigger jobs and fancy parts (night sites are ok). Yet the Majority of large Police Departments use Glocks exclusively. All these custom parts and trigger jobs don’t make the gun any better. You can either shoot or you can’t. Glock is the most reliable, good shooting gun right out of the box, made.

Glock is the best handgun pistol there is. I have said before, what AK 47 to rifle is what Glock to pistol. Army play a lot of politic always. May be made in U.S.A by Sig has influence factor. Over 60% of I heard of the world nations use Glock, they seemed to supply the gun to them fine.

Glock IS NOT the best pistol out there even after you spend $300 in aftermarket parts to help it shoot better. Even my $400 Ruger American Pistol shoots better and is more accurate right out of the box.

Look… we are AMERICAN !! As AMERICANS we should always but AMERICAN first !! 16yrs in the Army.. I’ve fired all the hand guns in service today as well as past service weapons.. I liked them all.. but there’s just to much hype over the glock.. I’d take a WWII Colt 1911 over a glock.. sorry !

You are spot on in your comments, and I say this as an avid gun owner and an acquisition workforce member for the Navy. Having participated on two source selection boards I can say that unfortunately protests have become more common over the last two decades. Acquisition policies like lowest price technically acceptable, and best value continuum can become mangled when coupled with over cautious source selection authority, and too much risk management by contracting officers worried they’ll face jail for the wrong decision. All this, then add the lawyers and you have a cocktail that is destined to defeat the logic in selecting the RIGHT product to meet the end user. From a technical perspective both pistols are very close and having not seen the offeror’s price, I ASSume Sig came in lower or their proposal contained “value” (training,warranty, etc.) that gave them the edge.
So again, while all of us are not privy to the details of the proposal, I believe Glock is a better value based on it’s record of use in real life. That alone is huge, and I hope Glock prevails.

It’s a Glock. You’re not going to see a manual safety on that model, or any other model. The front rail, is what it is, and they finally started adding additional back straps in most of their models, so At Least now, you can change the grip size, to suit your hand. I myself carry a Sig P-229 Elite Scorpion, and am a firearms dealer. I can’t stand the look, or feel of Glock’s, but I do sell my fair share of them.

I doubt Glock has the capability to supply the MHS orders with American made pistols. All Sig pistols sold at retail in the US are also made in the US. Glock still builds many of their lot in Austria and imports into the US via Glock, Inc.

I don’t hear HK whining. Glock needs to take its lumps and move on. This reminds me of the Democrats losing the election. No matter what the outcome, Glock will root out every issue with Sig. This what we get when this new generation that has the “everyone gets a trophy” syndrome.

Having been responsible for conducting a weapons transition test for my agency back in 2014/2015 I can tell you that the Sig P320 won out over the Glock. Our test was based upon 20 different points that were critiqued with each test weapon (we had four different makes models competing) and the Sig was the overwhelming winning even by those who are die hard Glock people. Out testing criteria was one that we used in the past when we switched from 9mm to 40 so in our case the test was in no way build around a certain gun’s specs. The Glock was a test weapon we looked at in the previous test but then again it did not win out over what we choose then either for various reasons. There will always to people to argue what’s best. Sig showed up with the best product at that time and space and took home the contract. End of story

If you remember the history of Sig from the early to mid 80\’s or can check, you\’ll also find that Sig actually did beat Beretta in the testing back then and should have been awarded THAT contract. The armorer\’s name back then was Harold. 🙂

You do realize the Beretta didn’t win the original competition for the military? The original winner was Ruger…yes, Ruger. Oh, we can’t have that, especially since the Berettas were suddenly going to be made in Accoceke(sp), Maryland…in a senators district who just happened to be on the committee deciding on the new pistol. So, back out went the solicitation and a new competition started. Ooops! this time H&K was in the lead. Amazingly, they were found “non-responsive” to the requirements, they didn’t offer all the spare parts called for. H&K said, “Our pistol doesn’t use that part”. Oh, too bad, you aren’t qualified. Tadaa! Looks like Beretta will win…even though slides nicely shot back into peoples foreheads after around 250 rounds. Look at how many improvements had to be made to this POC pistol to make it work…and look at what pistols the point of the spear operators use.

I don’t care for either of the pistols…the Glocks or the Sig 320. I prefer a hammer on a military pistol…just not a Beretta.

I like Glock. I also own and like Sig. Will be interesting to see how this mess plays out. I would have no concerns going to war with a Glock, that is for sure. It’s funny and silly how so many keyboard warriors talk shit about Glock…

“Keep the beretta-best 9mm out there”
LOL. Not. I’d go to the range with you, and gladly pit my Sig against your Beretta. Also, as a firearms dealer, I can tell you Honestly. I’ve sold two Beretta’s from 2014 till’ today, and one was an Ugly PX4. Sold dozens of almost every Sig model out there. A few less Elite’s, but still, several of them. To me, that’s like comparing a Chevy Vega, to a Mercedes.

When i was on a Ranger M60 team as an AB/AG in the early 90’s i carried a Beretta M9 as my PRIMARY weapon. It was reliable that’s for sure. Other than that, it was a back up weapon that i certainly never wanted to use. In the military pistols are for back up, throwing, or paperweights. I’ll stick with my Sigs for now.

Those bastards need to accept the decision and come back with a pistol that actually meets the requirements next time. The Sig 320 outclasses theirs in every way, and the Army saw that clearly. All this protest is doing is wasting everyone’s time.

Outclassed by what means.? Sig made this pistol (P320) to meet the weapons specs just as did Glock G-17M) for the new version they have put out.
Having carried a Sig P220R for over 15 plus years before retiring I saw no difference in the two weapons as far as dependability was seen. What I did see was several ounces less weight for the Glock and I would assume every ounce on the battlefield would be a great relief to all carrying the load out there.
My time in was a M-14 then M16 rifle but the old faithful 1911 remained my entire 9 years in the Corps.(1969 thru 1978)
But back to the Glock Sig Arms controversy, if the Sig is the best pistol so be it but, I have a hard time buying that story. Knowing and owning and carrying both brands I would think Glock will have a good say on this rebuttal. Cant wait to see how Uncle Sam calls this one and the reason they do as after the weapon comes spares and parts and armors kits and so on. I can bet this is going to be where the big big dollars goes to Sig Arms if they have cut the pricing below the Glock pistol.

The “new” militaries problem is female soldiers have small hands and glock replacable back straps are a bandaid that doesn’t work all that well; but, sig’s modular system makes one serialized action fit all hand sizes in a full sized sidearm or a compact carry configuration. So, one serialized module with inexpensive parts will fit any soldier in any mission. And as an additional benefit if some group needs 40, 357, 45 or most other pistol calibers the conversion is a new magazine and barrel.

Glock did not get the contract, because their platform did not meet the criteria which was set forth. Glock has enjoyed record sales all over the world with mostly law enforcement agencies. I personally own two Glocks for specific needs, but I wouldn’t own one to be used in a combat situation. Glock’s arrogance has now interfered, with guidelines, and contract time lines, just to prove what sniveling cry babies they truly are. If they can’t meet our warriors needs, than accept it, and move to the other sales you enjoy all over the world. Being a Military Veteran myself, I have used a 1911 platform in the past, which never let me down, and would be my 1ST choice in a combat role. But that’s my opinion. So in closing, to all the Glock executives, get over it, you lost, and move on!!!